quote: "Egyptians cluster more with African populations" - Oshun (you posted this a page back)
quote: "geographical" is meaningless if you're saying it's wrong to lump people in by region. To refer to regions is to make arbitrary "clusters." I'll even go as far as to say you don't have to discuss a specific ethnic group anymore because that's clustering too.
Yes, which is unavoidable.
I'm not denying what I've said, I'm expanding on what I said because you're trying to twist what I was communicating. You just said it's unavoidable to cluster but are now trying to act like "clustering" by regions is suddenly a bad thing when people do it for Africa or SSA and not the landmasses that would be of greatest benefit to your interests. You are and have been acting as though you are entitled to create separate rules for yourself and those that disagree with you.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: The South Levant is a region just like Africa. You are generalizing many ethnic groups to a single arbitrary region and discussing them as a biological group. The same can be said for Sudan. You think you're the only one allowed to do this, and complain when anybody else does it.
Do you have access to the Cambridge database?
3 - Agricultural origins
By Christopher Ehret Edited by Graeme Barker, University of Cambridge, Candice Goucher, Washington State University
Its like you only googled what clines are after I told you yesterday and you're now trying to shift your position and deny your old posts.
quote:
Our article presents a detailed Holocene archaeological sequence from the Nile Valley at Kerma in Upper Nubia, northern Sudan. This sequence retraces the evolution of human populations thanks to the study of several sites, supported by 90 14C dates. Reconstruction of the environmental changes was supported by a study of dated stratigraphic sections located near the archaeological sites studied, and illustrates the effects on human occupation of changes in river flow and floods, which are in turn forced by climatic changes. The results shed new light on the evolutionary dynamics of the Holocene populations in Nile Valley, little known due to the numerous hiatuses in occupation. When compared with the situation in the Sahara and the rest of the Nile Valley, they confirm that the initial occupation took place ca. 10.5 kyr BP after the start of the African Humid Period, followed by a migration towards the banks of the Nile commencing 7.3 kyr BP. They also confirm the appearance of the Neolithic by ca. 8.0 kyr BP. The Kerma stratigraphic sequences show two prosperous periods (10–8 and 7-6 kyr BP) and two hiatuses in the occupation of the sites (7.5–7.1 and 6.0–5.4 kyr BP), resulting from increased aridity.
—Matthieu Honeggera, Martin Williams b et al.
Human occupations and environmental changes in the Nile valley during the Holocene: The case of Kerma in Upper Nubia (northern Sudan)
El- Barga reveals one of the most important necropoleis of the early Holocene in Africa.
This site was discovered in 2001 during a survey concentrating on the zones bordering the alluvial plain. The name el-Barga is borrowed from a nearby mountain. The site is located on an elevation formed by an outcrop of bedrock (Nubian sandstone) less than 15 km from the Nile, as the crow flies. It includes a settlement area dated to circa 7500 B.C. and cemeteries belonging to two distinct periods.
The habitation is a circular hut slightly less than five metres in diameter, its maximum depth exceeding 50 centimetres. This semi-subterranean structure contained a wealth of artefacts resulting from the site’s occupation (ceramics, grinding tools, flint objects, ostrich eggshell beads, a mother-of-pearl pendant, bone tools, faunal remains, shells). The abundance of artefacts discovered suggests a marked inclination towards a sedentary lifestyle, even though certain activities (fishing and hunting) necessitate seasonal migration.
North of this habitation, about forty burials were dated to the Epipalaeolithic (7700-7000 B.C.) and generally do not contain any furnishings. On the other hand, the Neolithic cemetery (6000-5500 B.C.) located further south comprises about a hundred burials often containing artefacts (adornment, ceramics, flint or bone objects).
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Please stop lying.
"Egyptians cluster more with African populations" - Oshun (you posted this a page back)
quote:"The Mahalanobis D2 analysis uncovered close affinities between Nubians and Egyptians. Table 3 lists the Mahalanobis D2 distance matrix. As there is no significance testing that is available to be applied to this form of Mahalanobis distances, the biodistance scores must be interpreted in relation to one another, rather than on a general scale. In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian).
These relationships are further depicted in the PCO plot (Fig. 2). Aside from these interpopulation relationships, some Nubian groups are still more similar to other Nubians and some Egyptians are more similar to other Egyptian samples. Moreover, although the Nubian and Egyptian samples formed one well-distributed group, the Egyptian samples clustered in the upper left region, while the Nubians concentrated in the lower right of the plot. One line can be drawn that would separate the closely dispersed Egyptians and Nubians. The predynastic Egyptian samples clustered together (Badari and Naqada), while Gizeh most closely groups with the Lisht sample. The first two principal coordinates from PCO account for 60% of the variation in the samples. The graph from PCO is basically a pictorial representation of the distance matrix and interpretations from the plot mirror the Mahalanobis D2 matrix."
--Godde K.
An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404. Epub 2009 Sep 19.
quote: Excavating a unique pre-Mesolithic cemetery in central Sudan
Donatella Usai, Sandro Salvatori, Paola Iacumin, Antonietta Di Matteo, Tina Jakob & Andrea Zerboni
Introduction
The population of the pre-Mesolithic cemetery at Al Khiday 2 (16-D-4, Figure 1) in central Sudan must have had a unique outlook on the afterlife. Archaeologists associate flexed inhumation burials common to prehistoric cemeteries worldwide with the foetal position, a formal expression of a 'new life'. However, what explanation can be suggested for burying the deceased in a prone and extended position as found at Al Khiday 2? Here we report on this unique cemetery with its unusual burial rite (Figure 2)
The cemetery is a multi-stratified site on a low fluvial bar, probably deposited by the Nile in the Upper Pleistocene (Williamson 2009), and is located 35km south of Omdurman, on the western bank of the White Nile. The site of Al Khiday 2 was discovered during an extensive survey covering c. 245km˛. Archaeological work took place in 2006-2008 excavating c. 475m˛. A total of 120 skeletons have so far been excavated and bioarchaeological studies, including demography, metric and non-metric analysis to establish population differences, as well as skeletal and dental pathology, were carried out. The site was excavated stratigraphically and organic material (charcoals, bones and shells) was collected for radiocarbon dating, performed at BETA Analytic Laboratory, USA (Table 1). Archaeological contexts were defined by pottery decoration, according to a classification proposed by Caneva (Caneva 1988), and supported by layer-feature specific radiometric dating. Calibration (2σ in the text) of conventional and AMS radiocarbon results used INTCAL04 under OxCal v.3.10; uncalibrated years are reported as bp while calibrated age is indicated as cal years BC/AD
So far, 50 individuals (males, females and children of all ages) have been excavated by the Is.I.A.O. (Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente) Archaeological Mission, all buried lying on their front. On the basis of radiocarbon dates (conventional and AMS) and stratigraphy the burials date to a pre-Mesolithic phase. During a well-defined Mesolithic phase (6580-6440 cal BC) the site was used as a settlement and later by a Neolithic population as a burial ground (4360-4250 cal BC). More recently, a Meroitic group selected it as their cemetery (20-140 cal AD). A total of 120 graves have been excavated and, on the basis of surface finds, nearly half of the cemetery has now been investigated. Ongoing bioarchaeological analyses indicate that the three populations differ in robusticity, occurrence of skeletal and dental diseases and tooth modification practices.
The Mesolithic features, consisting of pits of different function, allow the reconstruction of the anthropic and natural disturbances affecting the oldest graveyard phase (Figures 3 and 4). The pre-Mesolithic skeletons cannot be directly dated, being almost completely depleted of organic material (collagen), but they are placed in time through the stratigraphic evidence provided by some of these pits. Three radiocarbon dates on charcoal and shell from pits cutting through the skeletons imply a date for the human remains before 6600 cal BC (6660-6500 cal BC; 7050-6400 cal BC; 6590-6380 cal BC). These dates are supported by the pottery assemblage from the pits, which is also radiocarbon dated from a stratified layer at the nearby Al Khiday 1 settlement (Salvatori & Usai 2009), to about 6640-6450 cal BC. A radiocarbon date of 6650-6470 cal BC on organic matter in a marsh deposit formed during the Mesolithic occupation of the site, after the burial of the prone individuals, supports the attribution to a pre-Mesolithic phase.
quote: "Egyptians cluster more with African populations" - Oshun (you posted this a page back)
quote: "geographical" is meaningless if you're saying it's wrong to lump people in by region. To refer to regions is to make arbitrary "clusters." I'll even go as far as to say you don't have to discuss a specific ethnic group anymore because that's clustering too.
Yes, which is unavoidable.
I'm not denying what I've said, I'm expanding on what I said because you're trying to twist what I was communicating. You just said it's unavoidable to cluster but are now trying to act like "clustering" by regions is suddenly a bad thing when people do it for Africa or SSA and not the landmasses that would be of greatest benefit to your interests. You are and have been acting as though you are entitled to create separate rules for yourself and those that disagree with you.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: I'm not denying what I've said, I'm expanding on what I said because you're trying to twist what I was communicating. You just said it's unavoidable to cluster but are now trying to act like "clustering" by regions is suddenly a bad thing when people do it for Africa or SSA and not the landmasses that would be of greatest benefit to your interests. You are and have been acting as though you are entitled to create separate rules for yourself and those that disagree with you.
If your position is clines and you realize clustering is arbitrary (doubtful since your earlier posts contradict this), why are you still positing a pan-African grouping? The answer is you're a black nationalist/pan-Africanist and your pan-African group lumps Egyptians with all populations in Sub-Sahara Africa - to fit your political interests. In contrast I'm not proposing any sort of pan/continental grouping for Egyptians (not with Europeans, or anyone); I've also criticized too broad geographical labels (as has Brace et al) i.e. if you arbitrarily cluster too many populations over a wide area of space, heterogeneity is maximized and so it is not useful to any analysis since there will be too dissimilar populations in the cluster/set/group. While all human clustering is arbitrary, some groupings are obviously more useful than others.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: If your position is clines and you realize clustering is arbitrary (doubtful since your earlier posts contradict this), why are you still positing a pan-African grouping? The answer is you're a black nationalist/pan-Africanist and your pan-African group lumps Egyptians with all populations in Sub-Sahara Africa - to fit your political interests. In contrast I'm not proposing any sort of pan/continental grouping for Egyptians (not with Europeans, or anyone); I've also criticized too broad geographical labels (as has Brace et al) i.e. if you arbitrarily cluster too many populations over a wide area of space, heterogeneity is maximized and so it is not useful to any analysis. While all clustering is arbitrary, some groupings are obviously more useful than others.
You have nothing relevant to offer. You keep posting Brace? smh
You live in this world of alternative facts. A delusions fantasy.
quote:"This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic.
[...]
This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972; Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger-Congo populations). These results support the hypothesis that some of the Paleolithic–early Holocene populations from northeast Africa were probably descendents of sub-Saharan ancestral populations."
--F X Ricaut · M Waelkens
Article: Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements
Human Biology 11/2008; 80(5):535-64. DOI:10.3378/1534-6617-80.5.535 · 1.52 Impact Factor
I recently e-mailed Dr. Brace about the biological affinities of East Africans, particularly peoples of the Upper Nile and Horn and this is his reply. I will forward the e-mail to Ausar to authenticate it.
Here is is reply:
"As I see it, the appearances of the Upper Nile Valley and Horn people has little if anything to do with admixtures and much the result of in situ circumstances. The elongation of the nose is clearly a climate-induced phenomenon and takes a long time to manifest itself. The same thing is true for the reduction in tooth size which markedly distinguishes those people form the Niger-Congo people. One has to suggest that Vavilov's identification of that as one of the early areas of crop domestication would have meant that food preparation techniques reducing the pressures for mastication had been operating there for a long time, and tooth size reduction in situ would be one of the expected consequences.
quote:I would suggest that there are very few who, of their own experience, have actually perceived at first hand the nature of human variation. What we know of the characteristics of the various regions of the world we have largely gained vicariously and in misleadingly spotty fashion. Pictures and the television camera tell us that the people of Oslo in Norway, Cairo in Egypt, and Nairobi in Kenya look very different. And when we actually meet natives of those separate places, which can indeed happen, we can see representations of those differences at first hand.
But if one were to walk up beside the Nile from Cairo, across the Tropic of Cancer to Khartoum in the Sudan and on to Nairobi, there would be no visible boundary between one people and another. The same thing would be true if one were to walk north from Cairo, through the Caucasus, and on up into Russia, eventually swinging west across the northern end of the Baltic Sea to Scandinavia. The people at any adjacent stops along the way look like one another more than they look like anyone else since, after all, they are related to one another. As a rule, the boy marries the girl next door throughout the whole world, but next door goes on without stop from one region to another.
"More recently, it has been shown that ancient Egyptians had brachial indices that were generally similar to other African populations and crural indices more similar to Southern Europeans (Raxter, 2011). Body breadth and body mass relative to stature in ancient Egyptians were intermediate between high- and low-latitude groups (Raxter, 2011)."
Stop spamming the debunked "ancient Egyptians were tropical Africans", its been falsified.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:If your position is clines and you realize clustering is arbitrary (doubtful since your earlier posts contradict this), why are you still positing a pan-African grouping?
I'm used to discussing Africa as a generalized region, because I've seen enough times "Africa" made into a region and compared to other arbitrary regions. Often the set of Africans being compared to people outside of Africa is not consistent, but AE will generally gravitate to the "African" set. Because there's a central theme or pattern of of comparison is towards "Africa", so I say Africa.
quote: The answer is you're a black nationalist/pan-Africanist and your pan-African group lumps Egyptians with all populations in Sub-Sahara Africa - to fit your political interests.
A pan Africanist encourages smaller regions in Africa to identify with the land as a whole. So as long as A/E had affinity to any African people, this would be political leverage enough to a Pan Africanist given the worldview. Pan Africanists do not need to generalize the continent as a region.
quote: In contrast I'm not proposing any sort of pan/continental grouping for Egyptians (not with Europeans, or anyone)
WTF you just grouped people of the Levant and Europe to say it is they AE had more connection to. "Europe" isn't a literal continent but it often socially regarded as one for political reasons and gave birth to the Pan European identity we call today "whiteness." You then tried to justify doing it as you called everyone else political b/c Europe is "just right" in size compared to Africa. However specific ethnic groups in Europe exist and would provide more specific results. But it's okay to regard Europe and not simply a country or ethnic group in Europe. Typical Eurocentrism.
quote:I've also criticized too broad geographical labels (as has Brace et al) i.e. if you arbitrarily cluster too many populations over a wide area of space, heterogeneity is maximized and so it is not useful to any analysis since there will be too dissimilar populations in the cluster/set/group. While all human clustering is arbitrary, some groupings are obviously more useful than others.
And I'm sure consistently discussing a language or ethnic groups would've been more useful than saying "Europe." what becomes "too broad" is opinionated. What is "too dissimilar" is arbitrary since biological races don't exist.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
You morons up here debating which shade level of Melanin makes one black like a bunch of dummies, allowing JoshuaConnerMoon to lead you all like children.
btw, JCM we(the real posters who made ES what it was)have debated better than you..you already lost a few years ago...just saying.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: You morons up here debating which shade level of Melanin makes one black like a bunch of dummies, allowing JoshuaConnerMoon to lead you all like children.
btw, JCM we(the real posters who made ES what it was)have debated better than you..you already lost a few years ago...just saying.
Exactly! There is absolutely no need to engage the irrelevant dolt. He is free to continue to believe in whatever fantasy suits him, and we are free to dismiss his fantasies.
The greatest respect you can accord to someone is to listen to them and regard their positions and sentiments as important... and I certainly have no such respect for a troll with an unhealthy obsession with a predominantly black civilization (Upper Egypt) -- meaning he is dismissed.
There are plenty of studies that make ample use of the nebulous term "Eurasian" - a term that conflates a significantly larger landmass than Africa (the rest of the world excluding "Sub-Saharan" Africa); this term refers to a region inhabited by markedly distinct populations - so the hypocrisy can't be allowed to stand.
I recall a recent study on Bronze age Minoans that concluded that they were genetically European, so I just laugh when non-Africans protest the use of Africa or Africans on an African civilization.
What the dolt fails (or refuses to grasp) is that "Eurasians" are derived from the Northeast Africans that migrated out of Africa over 60, 000 years ago, which is precisely why these "Eurasian" populations share craniometric similaries with Northeast Africans. I suppose the troll had the laughable notion that the source of the similarities was from the other way round.
Linguistics, archaelogy, culture, skin reflectance analysis, craniofacial data, melanin dosage tests and more, place AE in a Northeast African context, so Europeans really just need to continue valorizing ancient Greece and Rome and continually remind their populations how these two civilizations are the source of "Western civilization" and how they are the inheritors of the Greco-Roman heritage.
The study the troll referenced apparently put an inordinate emphasis on late period Lower Egyptians that were already subject to extensive admixture.
In other words, Upper Egyptians that are universally acknowledged as tropically adapted were largely excluded; Upper Egyptians created AE and were the demographic majority so any study that fails to properly include them is flawed and is to be dismissed.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:If your position is clines and you realize clustering is arbitrary (doubtful since your earlier posts contradict this), why are you still positing a pan-African grouping?
I'm used to discussing Africa as a generalized region, because I've seen enough times "Africa" made into a region and compared to other arbitrary regions. Often the set of Africans being compared to people outside of Africa is not consistent, but AE will generally gravitate to the "African" set. Because there's a central theme or pattern of of comparison is towards "Africa", so I say Africa.
quote: The answer is you're a black nationalist/pan-Africanist and your pan-African group lumps Egyptians with all populations in Sub-Sahara Africa - to fit your political interests.
A pan Africanist encourages smaller regions in Africa to identify with the land as a whole. So as long as A/E had affinity to any African people, this would be political leverage enough to a Pan Africanist given the worldview. Pan Africanists do not need to generalize the continent as a region.
quote: In contrast I'm not proposing any sort of pan/continental grouping for Egyptians (not with Europeans, or anyone)
WTF you just grouped people of the Levant and Europe to say it is they AE had more connection to. "Europe" isn't a literal continent but it often socially regarded as one for political reasons and gave birth to the Pan European identity we call today "whiteness." You then tried to justify doing it as you called everyone else political b/c Europe is "just right" in size compared to Africa. However specific ethnic groups in Europe exist and would provide more specific results. But it's okay to regard Europe and not simply a country or ethnic group in Europe. Typical Eurocentrism.
quote:I've also criticized too broad geographical labels (as has Brace et al) i.e. if you arbitrarily cluster too many populations over a wide area of space, heterogeneity is maximized and so it is not useful to any analysis since there will be too dissimilar populations in the cluster/set/group. While all human clustering is arbitrary, some groupings are obviously more useful than others.
And I'm sure consistently discussing a language or ethnic groups would've been more useful than saying "Europe." what becomes "too broad" is opinionated. What is "too dissimilar" is arbitrary since biological races don't exist.
You never read my posts properly and constantly troll/misrepresent my position. For starters I said populations from southern Europe are not white, but a faint light brown in pigmentation. I don't consider southern Europeans "white", nor use that term to label them. Does that sound pan-European/white nationalist to you? I am perfectly willing to divide populations in Europe, since unlike you I'm not in this for some sort of pan-continental politics. You revealed your pan-African biases when you started accusing me or others of trying to 'divide' Africa. Normal people wouldn't take offence to this because they don't cling to a pan-African identity; I don't get mad if someone tried to divide Europe into smaller regions, but it upsets you if someone divides Africa for research/analysis and then you start frothing at the mouth and throwing around baseless accusations of "racism".
My simple point about Europe being used sometimes in analysis as a geographical label/arbitrary cluster is it is far smaller than Africa. Hence if you look at genetic distances in Europe, they are not very big and for the same reason, there is not a great craniometric distance between Norse/Berg/Zalavar from Howell's database. A "European" group has more utility than an "African" group because there is more similarity in the population sets. The fact there isn't a great difference between European populations in craniometric means, is why 19th century anthropologists thought that Northern Europeans are "depigmentated Mediterraneans", their skull-form being very similar. Again, compare how small Europe is to Africa-
This is why Brace et al, often use the following geographical labels:
* Europe * North Africa * Sub-Saharan Africa
I never said this was the correct way, but it makes more sense since these divisions are roughly the same size and include a similar number of population samples. In contrast combining North and Sub-Sahara Africa and you end up with a landmass far larger than Europe and too many population samples under one geographical label. Its rather pathetic you think this is some sort of double standard; occasionally Brace et al have actually made smaller regional labels, e.g. South vs. North Europe, and the latter makes more sense if pigmentation is taken into account. Again, as I pointed out - unlike you I don't take offence when this happens.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's almost adorable that the troll thinks this is about him and his use of terms. Evidently this contest over history isn't about insignificant trolls on the net. This is about the "Western" elite and their centuries long campaign to remove AE from its Northeast African context and assign it to Western Asia and the Mediterranean - as part of some "Caucasian" world.
We saw an example of this with the reconstruction of King Tut and the characterization of the boy king as a North African "Caucasian". This happened as recently as 2005 and we still see it today. The Dynastic race theory has not been entirely discarded.
The vast majority of AE's dynasties came from the South -- from Upper Egypt where the population were tropically adapted and stem from a common origin with the "Nubians" as far back as the Khartoum Mesolithic, and yet when AE is portrayed, we see Europeans representing them.
When Kush is discussed, the insulting term the "black Pharaohs" is thrown around as if most AE Pharaohs were not from Upper Egypt.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Ancient Egyptians are not closer genetically to all African populations than those outside Africa.
Ok, now please present the ancient Egyptian autosomal DNA that lets us confirm your position.
I don't need autosomal DNA, I can demonstrate what I posted by archaeology, i.e. small-scale movement into Egypt from the south Levant, meaning there will be a cline south levant>lower Egypt>upper Egypt>Nubia. This cline was in place before the proto-dynastic, for example look at the archaeological research on Neolithic cultural interactions and direct bi-lateral trade between southern levant and lower Egypt/Nile Delta.
No you DO need DNA because: You dont know what type of prehistoric hunter gatherer populations were in the North Eastern quadrant of Africa at that time. -You dont know the genetic affinities of Ancient Egyptians "Afro-Asiatic" Ancestors from the Eastern Saharan, Red Sea Coast, Horn of Africa or Southern Levant. -You dont know the genetic affinities of Ancient Egyptians ancestors from the Eastern or Western Deserts. -You dont know the genetic affinities of Ancient Egyptians ancestors that are refugees from the Eastern Sahara. -You dont know the genetic affinities of Ancient Egyptians ancestors from the Central Sahara. -You dont know the genetic affinities of Ancient Egyptians ancestors who are associated with the Mesolithic of Khartoum.
You dont know the genetic affinities of ANY of Egyptians AFRICAN ancestors (out of their many lines of ancestry) because none of these ANCIENT populations have ever been sequenced - Except for Ethiopian MOTA ......and 18/20th dynasty low resolution Autosomal STR's if you want to count that. (but i know you dont )
You cannot make genetic inferences about ancient populations without ancient remains. LOOK at what has happened in Europe with all of their ancestors: Neanderthal, ANE, Hunter Gatherer, Neolithic Farmer from the middle East, Steppe Herder, Anatolian Farmer. etc. [/QB]
@JoshuaConnerMoon. Still waiting for your explanation as to how you have the genetic prehistory of Egypt all sorted out without having any samples of the ancient DNA WHILE AT THE SAME TIME avoiding the ancient DNA that DOES exist which runs contrary to your narrative.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: You never read my posts properly and constantly troll/misrepresent my position. For starters I said populations from southern Europe are not white, but a faint light brown in pigmentation.
Whiteness as a social pan European concept does not require people to literally be white. Now you're just playing stupid.
quote:I don't consider southern Europeans "white", nor use that term to label them.
so full of sh!t. You've been the main one saying Southern Europeans are white.
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ''Achilles is xanthos 'brown''' ===
Firstly xanthos means yellow, and it was mostly only applied to hair colour not skin colour.
Aνθος/Xanthós/Xanthos/Xanthus
In ancient Greek Xanthos (άνθος) = a shade of yellow, blonde, gold.
A Homeric Dictionary for Schools and Colleges, 1891):
‘‘ξανθός (xanthos): ''reddish-yellow, blond or auburn (flavus).’’
Xantho- Xan"tho- A combining form from Greek xanqo`s yellow. Xanthic Xan"thic adjective [ Greek xanqo`s yellow: confer French xanthique .] 1. Tending toward a yellow colour’’
Achilles is described as ''sandy haired'' i.e blonde (Iliad, I. 207).
Achilles is described as white skinned (leukodi) by Homer (Iliad, 11.570):
''...and himself stood between Trojans and Achaeans, battling furiously. And the spears hurled by bold hands were some of them lodged in his great shield, as they sped onward, and many, ere ever they reached his white body(leukodi), stood fixed midway in the earth, fain to glut themselves with flesh.''
leukodi/leuko/leukon/leukos meaning:
A. white. B. of the human skin, white, fair
quote: From Euripides we also have a quote, describing Dionysus as white skinned:
[Pentheus addresses Dionysus:] “Your body is not ill-formed, stranger, for women's purposes . . . For your hair is long, not through wrestling, scattered over your cheeks, full of desire; and you have a white skin from careful preparation, hunting after Aphrodite by your beauty not exposed to strokes of the sun, but beneath the shade.” - Bacchae, 455
quote: Does that sound pan-European/white nationalist to you? I am perfectly willing to divide populations in Europe, since unlike you I'm not in this for some sort of pan-continental politics.
No, you are very willing to say you don't describe or see them as white when it suits your interests to argue otherwise. Viewers who don't know who you are will fail to see through your BS because they don't know your history. This is why history is important kids.
quote: You revealed your pan-African biases when you started accusing me or others of trying to 'divide' Africa. Normal people wouldn't take offence to this because they don't cling to a pan-African identity;
I accused you of trying to de Africanize Egypt because that's what Eurocentric and racist thinkers do. They have a history of trying to place Egypt (culturally or biologically) not with related and nearby Africans, but in the Middle East or Europe so they can make bigoted judgements to most of Africa:
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Viking Mud Hut..
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
How many whites claim white people are indigenous to sub-sahara africa and attempt claim they invented the mud hut?
That's called a hovel. It has a thatched roof. Its different to the african mud hut.
The main point is though europeans don't live in hovels today. We have sky scrapers, fantastic buildings and good housing.
Sub-Saharan black africans however still live in mud huts -
NOTE: Blacks never even realised howto create roofs, so they just put tree sticks on top.
And these are the so called people who created rome, egypt etc according to the afronuts.
You regionalized Europe and the Levant and placed AE closer to THOSE generalized areas over anywhere in Africa, you're not slick. The Sahara was only centuries returned by the time dynastic Egypt came to be. Some researchers even debate the dates and are saying the Sahara hadn't even made a full return until a few centuries after dynastic Egypt arrived. But for some reason AE wouldn't have been closer in biological relationship to nearby Africans they'd have easy access to for the thousands of years prior. They lived among Africans that did not live in a Sahara desert and still had access to those very same groups they'd have had more access to for thousands of years via the Nile. You are attempting to deflect anyone calling you for filth based on the history of your white supremacist, Eurocentric bilge. You twist any accusations by insisting that anybody here that speaks out is only doing so because of Pan Africanism. Couldn't be because no one wants to hear the ramblings of a deluded white supremacist @sshole.
quote: I don't get mad if someone tried to divide Europe into smaller regions,
You have spoken out when people tried to divide southern European civilizations in a way that connects them more to places outside Europe (like Africa). It's one thing to divide Europe into smaller regions. This doesn't disrupt a pan European political position. As long as it's placed in Europe it's leverage enough for a pan European. I could've been accused of acting on behalf of pan Africanism even if I had divided Africa into smaller areas, so long as the regions I was talking about were in Africa.
I'm not going to say I have no political beliefs involving the subjects of race or Africa. I have political beliefs like most normal people do. The difference between us is that when you were debunked you specifically started talking about what it means or says for blacks politically. No matter what your political beliefs, they don't have any relationship with whether information is true or false. Thinking that it's an adequate response means you're deluded enough to think your political positions will override any presentation of data.
quote:My simple point about Europe being used sometimes in analysis as a geographical label/arbitrary cluster is it is far smaller than Africa.
And anyone could argue "Europe" is much too large and to focus on specific ethnic groups or countries. You chose to say "Europe" because it fits your history of white supremacist, Eurocentrism. Europe being "just right" in size is Eurocentric. I chose to say Africa because compared populations in Africa are often not consistent in research. The only theme that runs consistently with African populations when compared in research is that they're African. Some researchers will even state their sampled populations meant to represent an "African" group. I've already mentioned the absence of academic consistency in what populations are referenced as my basis for broadening my region of reference.
You're twisting my words to keep this going for as long as you can. Africa being bigger should if anything give Europe an advantage. If it's more homogenous and is smaller Egyptians should biologically be closer to Europe as an average because the average would be more homogenous and biologically closer. This is not the case. Please take your L.
quote:Hence if you look at genetic distances in Europe, they are not very big and for the same reason, there is not a great craniometric distance between Norse/Berg/Zalavar from Howell's database. A "European" group has more utility than an "African" group because there is more similarity in the population sets.
"Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample CANNOT BE CONSIDERED to be a typical Egyptian series." - Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski, and
"We question the utility of ANY forensic application that attempts to constrain cranial variability into discrete biological 'races'" - R. Belcher1, F. Williams et. al.,
where were the other East Africans , i.e., the Cushitic and Nilotic groups represented in Howell's study?
Last, but not least...
From Howells' book, Who's Who is skulls:
p. 96
"The second kind of departure from DISPOP may be allied to the above but involves prehistoric specimens. As above, Fish Hoek, firmly Bushmen in other tests, is here, with no Bush in the reference framework, either European or Asian, not African. So the difficulty of placing the Elmenteita, Afalou, and Teviec specimens, seen earlier and repeated here, comes to the fore again: [b]robusticity? or lack of kin among reference populations? I consider either to be plausible.
p.101
"Beyond actual recent peoples matters change somewhat. Relatively late prehistoric specimens confirm expectable affiliations in many cases; in others the assignment is unreasonable. Certain earlier cases, like Mladec 1, seem to fall into place among modern populations of an area. However, such specimens as Afalou 5, Teviec 11, Elmenteita A and B, and Upper Cave 101 all are generally recognized as modern anatomically but are here probabilistically well removed, while suggesting affiliations which are not credible."
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
And the pretense of objectivity is completely shattered.
The troll desperately tries [and fails] to carefully construct arguments that afford him the flexibility to perform mental gymnastics he requires to undermine the simply unassailable fact that AE was created by black people in Upper and Lower Egypt; it's only in later periods that perhaps Lower Egypt became admixed... which would only make them biracial -- and I have yet to see biracial people (such as Obama) being referred to as white by Western Europeans.
Europeans are completely uncomfortable with the very notion of acknowledging the fact that the world's first advanced and incredibly influential civilization was a product of Northeast African blacks; this discomfort is a derivative of the fact that ancient Greece -the ostensible spring of "Western" civilization would not have been able to attain a fraction of its achievements were it not for its extensive contacts with Egypt.
The civilization of Crete was Europe's first civilization and it owed a great deal of its ascendancy to its relations with Egypt; Crete was a recipient of a plethora of great gifts from Egypt... namely the ability to read and write. The art and architecture of Crete was also clearly heavily influenced by Egypt.
The Hellenes [mycenaeans] then received these gifts but lost it shortly thereafter - ushering in what is commonly known as the Greek dark ages. The Greeks again rediscovered literacy through contact with the Phoenicians -- a polity that itself learned this from Egypt.
Northwest Europeans only accessed the keys to civilization when barbarian Germanic tribes overan Rome a little over a thousand years ago and exploited the wealth of material knowledge that Rome acquired through its conquest of the very Greece that itself acquired such wealth primarily from Egypt, and to a lesser extent the Levant and Mesopotamia.
The Romans conquered the source of excellence in the ancient world by conquering Egypt themselves.
Ancient Egypt was an advanced civilization thousands of years before it introduced the ancient Greeks to Science, Mathematics, architecture, Medecine and even philosophy. The fact that ancient Egypt was the product of Northeast blacks, makes it virtually impossible for Northwest Europeans to assert and maintain the notion that they are inherently superior - which is precisely what they have been asserting for over 500 years.
It's too much for the West to admit that they would not be where they are without all that they have absorbed from non-European civilizations, and that a black civilization was the greatest teacher of the ancient Greeks.
Everything has been distorted by these people. For example: Imhotep [not Hippocretes] was the true father of medecine.
The sooner we Africans overthrow our mis-leaders and traitors... the sooner we can begin to bequeth our children with such knowledge - without so much as a pinch of concern for what Europeans think.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quote: " without so much as a pinch of concern for what Europeans think."!!!!!!
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The wannabe Aryan master racers in here do know that most Aegyptians lived in mudbrick houses, including the elites right? The stone buildings were not for daily living. : l
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: so full of sh!t. You've been the main one saying Southern Europeans are white.
I've never described southern Europeans as white in pigmentation, e.g. going back to January 2012 (over 5 years), here is a comment I posted about the Luschan scale:
quote:Tanned or olive skin appears in the band 16-21, and it is neither light or dark, it occupies a medial position of skin tone most Mediterranean people have.
So you're lying about my position. And taking a quote out of context about Greek gods and goddesses I made before I even studied ancient Greek colour terms doesn't change this fact (i.e. 'leukos' does not only translate as milk or chalk white). Regardless, here's how I described the typical ancient Greek in July 2011:
quote:dusky or brownish-white skin, black or deep-brown eyes, black hair, mostly wavy or curly.
Clearly not white. And I've made this distinction between average northern and southern European pigmentation -the entire time- going back to my first account in 2010. In contrast you make no such distinction and maximize your definition of "black" skin to include much lighter brown skin shades, so you can lump Egyptians to fit your pan-African politics. After I exposed this you're now lying about my stance to say I was doing something similar for Europe.
Also, you're constantly confusing two different things I mentioned earlier: white pigmentation and "white" as a synonym for "Caucasoid". You're playing silly word games. This is like someone interpreting "Mongoloid" as meaning Mongols only; the term "white" as a synonym for "Caucasoid" has no reference to pigmentation, hence you can go dig up quotes from Carleton S. Coon (Living Races of Mankind, 1965) who describes *brown* (not white) skinned "Caucasoids" across Middle-East. For this reason as I pointed out earlier, 19th-early 20th century descriptions of the ancient Egyptians as "white" (e.g. Nott & Gliddon) are not a reference to pigmentation.
quote:No, you are very willing to say you don't describe or see them as white when it suits your interests to argue otherwise. Viewers who don't know who you are will fail to see through your BS because they don't know your history. This is why history is important kids.
I've never described them as white skinned. Nice try though. Anyone can search through my old posts (as early as 2010 on this forum) to see I've described Mediterranean populations as "olive"/light brown etcetc, furthermore at one point I was even using terms like "Mediterranid" and "Nordid" (following the biologist John Baker's book Race, 1974). See the two quotes I already provided. Please stop trying to project what you do yourself onto me. I've recognised the cline of skin pigmentation in Europe from day one of being here and (unlike you) that is why I've always avoided trying to categorize skin colour into broad/politicalized groupings.
quote:I accused you of trying to de Africanize Egypt because that's what Eurocentric and racist thinkers do. They have a history of trying to place Egypt (culturally or biologically) not with related and nearby Africans, but in the Middle East or Europe so they can make bigoted judgements to most of Africa.
This comment is 100% fact. Populations from Sub-Saharan Africa lacked ancient civilization and did not accomplish as much as others, that's why all Afrocentrists latch on to Egypt. Why would you deny this? Why is it "bigoted" to point this out? And I've pointed out the exact same thing about northern Europeans. Just compare the lack of civilization in Britain (pre-Roman) to Rome.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: This comment is 100% fact. Populations from Sub-Saharan Africa lacked ancient civilization and did not accomplish as much as others, that's why all Afrocentrists latch on to Egypt. Why would you deny this? Why is it "bigoted" to point this out? And I've pointed out the exact same thing about northern Europeans. Just compare the lack of civilization in Britain (pre-Roman) to Rome.
With this passage alone why is ANY ONE continuing to entertain this guy?
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: This comment is 100% fact. Populations from Sub-Saharan Africa lacked ancient civilization and did not accomplish as much as others, that's why all Afrocentrists latch on to Egypt. Why would you deny this? Why is it "bigoted" to point this out? And I've pointed out the exact same thing about northern Europeans. Just compare the lack of civilization in Britain (pre-Roman) to Rome.
With this passage alone why is ANY ONE continuing to entertain this guy?
He is a bloated idiot going in circles.
Celtic mudhut
quote:
The sandstone escarpment of the Dhar Tichitt in South-Central Mauritania was inhabited by Neolithic agropastoral communities for approximately one and half millennium during the Late Holocene, from ca. 4000 to 2300 BP. The absence of prior evidence of human settlement points to the influx of mobile herders moving away from the "drying" Sahara towards more humid lower latitudes. These herders took advantage of the peculiarities of the local geology and environment and succeeded in domesticating bulrush millet - Pennisetum sp. The emerging agropastoral subsistence complex had conflicting and/or complementary requirements depending on circumstances. In the long run, the social adjustment to the new subsistence complex, shifting site location strategies, nested settlement patterns and the rise of more encompassing polities appear to have been used to cope with climatic hazards in this relatively circumscribed area. An intense arid spell in the middle of the first millennium BC triggered the collapse of the whole Neolithic agropastoral system and the abandonment of the areas. These regions, resettled by sparse oasis-dwellers populations and iron-using communities starting from the first half of the first millennium AD, became part of the famous Ghana "empire", the earliest state in West African history.
—Holl, Augustin F. C.
Coping with uncertainty: Neolithic life in the Dhar Tichitt-Walata, Mauritania, ( ca. 4000-2300 BP)
AA(Museum of Anthropology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States)
Comptes rendus - Géoscience, Volume 341, Issue 8, p. 703-712.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: It's almost adorable that the troll thinks this is about him and his use of terms. Evidently this contest over history isn't about insignificant trolls on the net. This is about the "Western" elite and their centuries long campaign to remove AE from its Northeast African context and assign it to Western Asia and the Mediterranean - as part of some "Caucasian" world.
We saw an example of this with the reconstruction of King Tut and the characterization of the boy king as a North African "Caucasian". This happened as recently as 2005 and we still see it today. The Dynastic race theory has not been entirely discarded.
The vast majority of AE's dynasties came from the South -- from Upper Egypt where the population were tropically adapted and stem from a common origin with the "Nubians" as far back as the Khartoum Mesolithic, and yet when AE is portrayed, we see Europeans representing them.
When Kush is discussed, the insulting term the "black Pharaohs" is thrown around as if most AE Pharaohs were not from Upper Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: This comment is 100% fact. Populations from Sub-Saharan Africa lacked ancient civilization and did not accomplish as much as others, that's why all Afrocentrists latch on to Egypt. Why would you deny this? Why is it "bigoted" to point this out? And I've pointed out the exact same thing about northern Europeans. Just compare the lack of civilization in Britain (pre-Roman) to Rome.
With this passage alone why is ANY ONE continuing to entertain this guy?
Then show me the civilization in northern Europe or sub-Saharan Africa on par with the civilizations of Greece/Rome/Babylon/Egypt. The idea all populations are equal and have the same level of accomplishments is modern egalitarian theory, not science. What will you loons be arguing next - Australian aborigines had an ancient civilization? "we're all equal!". Right.
Australian aborigine primitive architecture:
Are you saying this is the same level of development as the Greek Parthenon? lol/
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: This comment is 100% fact. Populations from Sub-Saharan Africa lacked ancient civilization and did not accomplish as much as others, that's why all Afrocentrists latch on to Egypt. Why would you deny this? Why is it "bigoted" to point this out? And I've pointed out the exact same thing about northern Europeans. Just compare the lack of civilization in Britain (pre-Roman) to Rome.
With this passage alone why is ANY ONE continuing to entertain this guy?
Then show me the civilization in northern Europe or sub-Saharan Africa on par with the civilizations of Greece/Rome/Babylon/Egypt. The idea all populations are equal and have the same level of accomplishments is modern egalitarian theory, not science. What will you loons be arguing next - Australian aborigines had an ancient civilization? "we're all equal!". Right.
Australian aborigine primitive architecture:
Are you saying this is the same level of development as the Greek Parthenon? lol/
Now the clown is bringing in Australian aboriginals?
Why even talk about the Parthenon when you have nothing to do with it in the first place? Typical eurocentric nut job. Talk about your celtic mudhuts.
What you apparently still don't get is that we are talking about the indigenous culture of the Nile Valley.
Posts: 22249 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: [qb]This comment is 100% fact. Populations from Sub-Saharan Africa lacked ancient civilization and did not accomplish as much as others, that's why all Afrocentrists latch on to Egypt. Why would you deny this? Why is it "bigoted" to point this out? And I've pointed out the exact same thing about northern Europeans. Just compare the lack of civilization in Britain (pre-Roman) to Rome.
With this passage alone why is ANY ONE continuing to entertain this guy?
He is a bloated idiot going in circles.
Celtic mudhut
Read my posts. I've said northern Europeans were primitive in ancient times. I have said this from day one. However, northern Europeans redeemed themselves in more recent times such as industrial revolution; Sub-Saharan societies still lag behind.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: And the pretense of objectivity is completely shattered.
The troll desperately tries [and fails] to carefully construct arguments that afford him the flexibility to perform mental gymnastics he requires to undermine the simply unassailable fact that AE was created by black people in Upper and Lower Egypt; it's only in later periods that perhaps Lower Egypt became admixed... which would only make them biracial -- and I have yet to see biracial people (such as Obama) being referred to as white by Western Europeans.
Europeans are completely uncomfortable with the very notion of acknowledging the fact that the world's first advanced and incredibly influential civilization was a product of Northeast African blacks; this discomfort is a derivative of the fact that ancient Greece -the ostensible spring of "Western" civilization would not have been able to attain a fraction of its achievements were it not for its extensive contacts with Egypt.
The civilization of Crete was Europe's first civilization and it owed a great deal of its ascendancy to its relations with Egypt; Crete was a recipient of a plethora of great gifts from Egypt... namely the ability to read and write. The art and architecture of Crete was also clearly heavily influenced by Egypt.
The Hellenes [mycenaeans] then received these gifts but lost it shortly thereafter - ushering in what is commonly known as the Greek dark ages. The Greeks again rediscovered literacy through contact with the Phoenicians -- a polity that itself learned this from Egypt.
Northwest Europeans only accessed the keys to civilization when barbarian Germanic tribes overan Rome a little over a thousand years ago and exploited the wealth of material knowledge that Rome acquired through its conquest of the very Greece that itself acquired such wealth primarily from Egypt, and to a lesser extent the Levant and Mesopotamia.
The Romans conquered the source of excellence in the ancient world by conquering Egypt themselves.
Ancient Egypt was an advanced civilization thousands of years before it introduced the ancient Greeks to Science, Mathematics, architecture, Medecine and even philosophy. The fact that ancient Egypt was the product of Northeast blacks, makes it virtually impossible for Northwest Europeans to assert and maintain the notion that they are inherently superior - which is precisely what they have been asserting for over 500 years.
It's too much for the West to admit that they would not be where they are without all that they have absorbed from non-European civilizations, and that a black civilization was the greatest teacher of the ancient Greeks.
Everything has been distorted by these people. For example: Imhotep [not Hippocretes] was the true father of medecine.
The sooner we Africans overthrow our mis-leaders and traitors... the sooner we can begin to bequeth our children with such knowledge - without so much as a pinch of concern for what Europeans think.
Ignoring your usage of "black", I hardly disagree with you recognising AE were "northeast Africans". The point is though those northeast Africans are not sub-Saharan Africans who lacked civilization. This is like the north vs. south divided in Europe, only it is reversed - northern Europeans were primitive in ancient times, while southern Europeans had advanced cultures and civilizations.
Those Afrocentrists on this forum arguing for northeast African origin of AE I have little quarrel with. My main problem is those trying to attach sub-Saharan Africans to Egypt.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: [qb]This comment is 100% fact. Populations from Sub-Saharan Africa lacked ancient civilization and did not accomplish as much as others, that's why all Afrocentrists latch on to Egypt. Why would you deny this? Why is it "bigoted" to point this out? And I've pointed out the exact same thing about northern Europeans. Just compare the lack of civilization in Britain (pre-Roman) to Rome.
With this passage alone why is ANY ONE continuing to entertain this guy?
He is a bloated idiot going in circles.
Celtic mudhut
Read my posts. I've said northern Europeans were primitive in ancient times. I have said this from day one. However, northern Europeans redeemed themselves in more recent times such as industrial revolution; Sub-Saharan societies still lag behind.
Industrial revolution? Are you truly this dumb. The industrial revolution was an extent of colonialism and imperialism, so logically Africa and other continents lagged behind. Northern Europeans benefited from this.
quote: Geographic disparities complicate the picture as well. Belgium and, from the 1840s, many of the German states were well launched on an industrial revolution that brought them steadily closer to British levels. France, poorer in coal, concentrated somewhat more on increasing production in craft sectors, converting furniture making, for example, from an artistic endeavour to standardized output in advance of outright factory forms. Scandinavia and the Netherlands joined the industrial parade seriously only after 1850.
quote: "Musa Keita I came into power in 1312. When he was crowned, he was given the name Mansa, meaning king. At the time, much of Europe was famished and in the middle of civil wars, but many African kingdoms were thriving."
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: And the pretense of objectivity is completely shattered.
The troll desperately tries [and fails] to carefully construct arguments that afford him the flexibility to perform mental gymnastics he requires to undermine the simply unassailable fact that AE was created by black people in Upper and Lower Egypt; it's only in later periods that perhaps Lower Egypt became admixed... which would only make them biracial -- and I have yet to see biracial people (such as Obama) being referred to as white by Western Europeans.
Europeans are completely uncomfortable with the very notion of acknowledging the fact that the world's first advanced and incredibly influential civilization was a product of Northeast African blacks; this discomfort is a derivative of the fact that ancient Greece -the ostensible spring of "Western" civilization would not have been able to attain a fraction of its achievements were it not for its extensive contacts with Egypt.
The civilization of Crete was Europe's first civilization and it owed a great deal of its ascendancy to its relations with Egypt; Crete was a recipient of a plethora of great gifts from Egypt... namely the ability to read and write. The art and architecture of Crete was also clearly heavily influenced by Egypt.
The Hellenes [mycenaeans] then received these gifts but lost it shortly thereafter - ushering in what is commonly known as the Greek dark ages. The Greeks again rediscovered literacy through contact with the Phoenicians -- a polity that itself learned this from Egypt.
Northwest Europeans only accessed the keys to civilization when barbarian Germanic tribes overan Rome a little over a thousand years ago and exploited the wealth of material knowledge that Rome acquired through its conquest of the very Greece that itself acquired such wealth primarily from Egypt, and to a lesser extent the Levant and Mesopotamia.
The Romans conquered the source of excellence in the ancient world by conquering Egypt themselves.
Ancient Egypt was an advanced civilization thousands of years before it introduced the ancient Greeks to Science, Mathematics, architecture, Medecine and even philosophy. The fact that ancient Egypt was the product of Northeast blacks, makes it virtually impossible for Northwest Europeans to assert and maintain the notion that they are inherently superior - which is precisely what they have been asserting for over 500 years.
It's too much for the West to admit that they would not be where they are without all that they have absorbed from non-European civilizations, and that a black civilization was the greatest teacher of the ancient Greeks.
Everything has been distorted by these people. For example: Imhotep [not Hippocretes] was the true father of medecine.
The sooner we Africans overthrow our mis-leaders and traitors... the sooner we can begin to bequeth our children with such knowledge - without so much as a pinch of concern for what Europeans think.
Ignoring your usage of "black", I hardly disagree with you recognising AE were "northeast Africans". The point is though those northeast Africans are not sub-Saharan Africans who lacked civilization. This is like the north vs. south divided in Europe, only it is reversed - northern Europeans were primitive in ancient times, while southern Europeans had advanced cultures and civilizations.
Those Afrocentrists on this forum arguing for northeast African origin of AE I have little quarrel with. My main problem is those trying to attach sub-Saharan Africans to Egypt.
"the point is though those northeast Africans are not sub-Saharan Africans who lacked civilization."
There are many different sub-Sahara populations. Try to see that for once and there was certainly civilization. Not because you don't know it, it doesn't exist.
Posts: 22249 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Those Afrocentrists on this forum arguing for northeast African origin of AE I have little quarrel with. My main problem is those trying to attach sub-Saharan Africans to Egypt
This is only in your dreams. On the forum we have always stated the Nile Valley culture is indigenous to the region. It is you who makes these odd claims and references. And you have been in for a rude awaking. This is also the reason why you don't respond to my post and you run off like a little bitch. Because they certainly discerned you.
Posts: 22249 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Then show me the civilization in northern Europe or sub-Saharan Africaon par with the civilizations of Greece/Rome/Babylon/Egypt. The idea all populations are equal and have the same level of accomplishments is modern egalitarian theory, not science. What will you loons be arguing next - Australian aborigines had an ancient civilization? "we're all equal!". Right.
And its antecedent Kerma, both in Sub-Saharan Africa and long since recognized as Egypt's rival within the continent itself. May want to shift those goalposts again.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: And the pretense of objectivity is completely shattered.
The troll desperately tries [and fails] to carefully construct arguments that afford him the flexibility to perform mental gymnastics he requires to undermine the simply unassailable fact that AE was created by black people in Upper and Lower Egypt; it's only in later periods that perhaps Lower Egypt became admixed... which would only make them biracial -- and I have yet to see biracial people (such as Obama) being referred to as white by Western Europeans.
Europeans are completely uncomfortable with the very notion of acknowledging the fact that the world's first advanced and incredibly influential civilization was a product of Northeast African blacks; this discomfort is a derivative of the fact that ancient Greece -the ostensible spring of "Western" civilization would not have been able to attain a fraction of its achievements were it not for its extensive contacts with Egypt.
The civilization of Crete was Europe's first civilization and it owed a great deal of its ascendancy to its relations with Egypt; Crete was a recipient of a plethora of great gifts from Egypt... namely the ability to read and write. The art and architecture of Crete was also clearly heavily influenced by Egypt.
The Hellenes [mycenaeans] then received these gifts but lost it shortly thereafter - ushering in what is commonly known as the Greek dark ages. The Greeks again rediscovered literacy through contact with the Phoenicians -- a polity that itself learned this from Egypt.
Northwest Europeans only accessed the keys to civilization when barbarian Germanic tribes overan Rome a little over a thousand years ago and exploited the wealth of material knowledge that Rome acquired through its conquest of the very Greece that itself acquired such wealth primarily from Egypt, and to a lesser extent the Levant and Mesopotamia.
The Romans conquered the source of excellence in the ancient world by conquering Egypt themselves.
Ancient Egypt was an advanced civilization thousands of years before it introduced the ancient Greeks to Science, Mathematics, architecture, Medecine and even philosophy. The fact that ancient Egypt was the product of Northeast blacks, makes it virtually impossible for Northwest Europeans to assert and maintain the notion that they are inherently superior - which is precisely what they have been asserting for over 500 years.
It's too much for the West to admit that they would not be where they are without all that they have absorbed from non-European civilizations, and that a black civilization was the greatest teacher of the ancient Greeks.
Everything has been distorted by these people. For example: Imhotep [not Hippocretes] was the true father of medecine.
The sooner we Africans overthrow our mis-leaders and traitors... the sooner we can begin to bequeth our children with such knowledge - without so much as a pinch of concern for what Europeans think.
Ignoring your usage of "black", I hardly disagree with you recognising AE were "northeast Africans". The point is though those northeast Africans are not sub-Saharan Africans who lacked civilization. This is like the north vs. south divided in Europe, only it is reversed - northern Europeans were primitive in ancient times, while southern Europeans had advanced cultures and civilizations.
Those Afrocentrists on this forum arguing for northeast African origin of AE I have little quarrel with. My main problem is those trying to attach sub-Saharan Africans to Egypt.
"the point is though those northeast Africans are not sub-Saharan Africans who lacked civilization."
There are many different sub-Sahara populations. Try yo see that for once.
There's a reason why civilizations (excluding those of East Asia) arose in roughly the same area of the east-Mediterranean - Greece/Egypt/Phoenicia/Babylon etc. (Rome was basically a Greek transplant stemming from the Magna Graecia colonies and Carthaginian civilization was founded by Phoenicians). Can't be bothered to explain it right now though.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Then show me the civilization in northern Europe or sub-Saharan Africaon par with the civilizations of Greece/Rome/Babylon/Egypt[/b]. The idea all populations are equal and have the same level of accomplishments is modern egalitarian theory, not science. What will you loons be arguing next - Australian aborigines had an ancient civilization? "we're all equal!". Right.
And its antecedent Kerma, both in Sub-Saharan Africa and long since recognized as Egypt's rival within the continent itself. May want to shift those goalposts again.
One should understand that the Sahara was Green and lush. From Walata to Kerma there was civilization with similar architecture.
quote: Recent discoveries at Ounjougou reveal that Africa has experienced one of the most ancient ceramics in the world, at the beginning of the 10th millennium BC, while recent researches in the Sahara and in the Nile Valley demonstrate the practice of domestication of bovines in the course of the 9th millennium BC, more than 1000 years before Greece and the Middle East.
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: There's a reason why civilizations (excluding those of East Asia) arose in roughly the same area of the east-Mediterranean - Greece/Egypt/Phoenicia/Babylon etc. (Rome was basically a Greek transplant stemming from the Magna Graecia colonies and Carthaginian civilization was founded by Phoenicians). Can't be bothered to explain it right now though.
Don't worry:
quote: The site has been directly dated to 9650)9950 calBP (11), showing intense occupation over two to three centuries. The economy of the population has been shown to be that of pastoralists, focusing on goats (11). Archaeobotanical evidence is limited (16) but the evidence present is for two)row barley, probably wild, and no evidence for wheat, rye or other domesticates. In other words the overall economy is divergent from the classic agricultural mode of cereal agriculture found in the Levant, Anatolia and Northern Mesopotamian basin.
[...]
We compared GD13a with a number of other ancient genomes and modern populations (6, 17–29), using principal component analysis (PCA) (30), ADMIXTURE (31) and outgroup f3 statistics (32) (Fig. 1). GD13a did not cluster with any other early Neolithic individual from Eurasia in any of the analyses. ADMIXTURE and outgroup f3 identified Caucasus Hunter)Gatherers of Western Georgia, just north of the Zagros mountains, as the group genetically most similar to GD13a (Fig. 1B&C), whilst PCA also revealed some affinity with modern Central South Asian populations such as Balochi, Makrani and Brahui (Fig. 1A and Fig. S4). Also genetically close to GD13a were ancient samples from Steppe populations (Yamanya & Afanasievo) that were part of one or more Bronze age migrations into Europe, as well as early Bronze age cultures in that continent (Corded Ware) (17, 23), in line with previous relationships observed for the Caucasus Hunter)Gatherers (26).
[...]
Figure Legends:
Fig. 1. GD13a appears to be related to Caucasus Hunter Gatherers and to modern South Asian populations.
A) PCA loaded on modern populations (represented by open symbols). Ancient individuals (solid symbols) are projected onto these axes.
B) Outgroup f3(X, GD13a; Dinka), where Caucasus Hunter Gatherers (Kotias and Satsurblia) share the most drift with GD13a. Ancient samples have filled circles whereas modern populations are represented by empty symbols.
C) ADMIXTURE using K=17, where GD13a appears very similar to Caucasus Hunter Gatherers, and to a lesser extent to modern south Asian populations.
quote:The period following the fall of the Akkadian Empire is traditionally seen as a period of darkness and anarchy by historians. While the perceived darkness is due to the rarity of Gutian artefacts and text material, the anarchy is an impression formed by the historians gained from the Sumerian and Babylonian historical and literary compositions describing Gutian rule. In fact these compositions were mostly compiled later than the Gutian period itself. Later in this chapter we shall attempt to answer the question whether the Gutian period was really so dark and fruitless, and to interpret the related evidence.
The Gutian Arrival
Some historical allusions in the texts of the Akkadian period indicate that early on there was Gutian infiltration into Mesopotamian lowlands. One of these allusions is to the probable presence of Gutians as soldiers in the Akkadian army.1 The archives of Adab from the Akkadian period mention Gutians who received rations,2 some of them described as ‘travellers’3 and others term residents, that the local governor had to use a Gutian interpreter to communicate with them.
[...]
This acquaintance with Mesopotamian practices as well as other pertinent circumstances helped the Gutians overthrow the Akkadian Dynasty and seize power in the land.
[...]
Whatever the background, the Gutians finally dominated the land of Akkad and “carried off the kingship of Sumer to the mountains/foreign land.”17 This metaphor clearly implies that the fate of the land and its sovereignty passed into the hands of a foreigner, specifically the great Gutian king.18 The Gutians were probably supported by other peoples and groups in the region, perhaps even the Sumerians,19 who looked for liberation from the Akkadian yoke. The neighbouring peoples had together formed an alliance against Narām-Sîn years before, and so it would have been natural to do the same this time. Among the probable allies one may expect the Elamites who were always ready to benefit from any weakness of their western neighbour, the Lullubians, the Hurrians and other mountain peoples and groups who had raided Akkadian territories earlier or who had suffered from campaigns of the kings of Agade.(20) It appears that the Gutians did not (or perhaps they were not able to) spread their hegemony over the whole land of Sumer and Akkad. This is suggested by the presence of the influential Second Lagaš Dynasty and the Uruk Dynasty at the end of the period of Gutian rule. The inscriptions of Ur-Namma refer to at least three independent political entities in Sumer at that period: the Uruk city-state with its ruler Utu‹eg̃al, Lagaš, and the region under the Gutians. There is a suggestion that the two royal names Dudu and Šudurul, mentioned in the SKL as kings of Agade, were in fact rulers of the region centred on the city of Agade (21) during the Gutian rule.
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Then show me the civilization in northern Europe or sub-Saharan Africaon par with the civilizations of Greece/Rome/Babylon/Egypt. The idea all populations are equal and have the same level of accomplishments is modern egalitarian theory, not science. What will you loons be arguing next - Australian aborigines had an ancient civilization? "we're all equal!". Right.
And its antecedent Kerma, both in Sub-Saharan Africa and long since recognized as Egypt's rival within the continent itself. May want to shift those goalposts again.
North Sudan isn't Sub-Saharan Africa, but I'll go along with this for sake of argument since its close. Just google image to compare the Nubian pyramids to Egyptian pyramids. Why are the Nubian ones far inferior? Basically walking south from Egypt you get less and less level of accomplishment.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Then show me the civilization in northern Europe or sub-Saharan Africaon par with the civilizations of Greece/Rome/Babylon/Egypt. The idea all populations are equal and have the same level of accomplishments is modern egalitarian theory, not science. What will you loons be arguing next - Australian aborigines had an ancient civilization? "we're all equal!". Right.
And its antecedent Kerma, both in Sub-Saharan Africa and long since recognized as Egypt's rival within the continent itself. May want to shift those goalposts again.
North Sudan isn't Sub-Saharan Africa, but I'll go along with this for sake of argument since its close. Just google image to compare the Nubian pyramids to Egyptian pyramids. Why are the Nubian ones far inferior? Basically walking south from Egypt you get less and less level of accomplishment.
But it is a region and people more closely related to those from further south, aka sub-Sahara.
One needs to understand the reason why there were pyramids.
One need to understand why Central Sudan was so important as the axis for the Nile Valley culture.
This just shows that you hardly know the subject.
Posts: 22249 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Then show me the civilization in northern Europe or sub-Saharan Africaon par with the civilizations of Greece/Rome/Babylon/Egypt. The idea all populations are equal and have the same level of accomplishments is modern egalitarian theory, not science. What will you loons be arguing next - Australian aborigines had an ancient civilization? "we're all equal!". Right.
And its antecedent Kerma, both in Sub-Saharan Africa and long since recognized as Egypt's rival within the continent itself. May want to shift those goalposts again.
North Sudan isn't Sub-Saharan Africa, but I'll go along with this for sake of argument since its close. Just google image to compare the Nubian pyramids to Egyptian pyramids. Why are the Nubian ones far inferior? Basically walking south from Egypt you get less and less level of accomplishment.
But it is a region and people more closely related to those from further south, aka sub-Sahara.
One needs to understand the reason why there were pyramids.
One need to understand why Central Sudan was so important as the axis for the Nile Valley culture.
Are you willing to admit Egypt was more developed/superior than Nubia? Yes or No?
Can you admit Australian aborigines were (and still are) primitive? Yes or No?
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
There's a reason why civilizations (excluding those of East Asia) arose in roughly the same area of the east-Mediterranean - Greece/Egypt/Phoenicia/Babylon etc. (Rome was basically a Greek transplant stemming from the Magna Graecia colonies and Carthaginian civilization was founded by Phoenicians). Can't be bothered to explain it right now though.
Save it, what you should be reflecting on, is the reason why you believe there's no "civilization" outside of that area. That's the explainaton that'd make you want to eat your heart out... Knowing that Europe was pretty much the only region that needed crutches to develop some form of civility... If it wasn't for those Babylonians and Egyptians (as you say) teaching those ionions and Macedonian, etc. there would be no civilized European culture. There's evidence upon evidence of ssa populations developing cultures and civilizations INDEPENDENTLY of any OOA or even AEgyptian influence whether recently or prehistorically.
quote:Are you willing to admit Egypt was more developed/superior than Nubia? Yes or No?
This is Debatable....
Posts: 1785 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Then show me the civilization in northern Europe or sub-Saharan Africaon par with the civilizations of Greece/Rome/Babylon/Egypt. The idea all populations are equal and have the same level of accomplishments is modern egalitarian theory, not science. What will you loons be arguing next - Australian aborigines had an ancient civilization? "we're all equal!". Right.
And its antecedent Kerma, both in Sub-Saharan Africa and long since recognized as Egypt's rival within the continent itself. May want to shift those goalposts again.
North Sudan isn't Sub-Saharan Africa, but I'll go along with this for sake of argument since its close. Just google image to compare the Nubian pyramids to Egyptian pyramids. Why are the Nubian ones far inferior? Basically walking south from Egypt you get less and less level of accomplishment.
But it is a region and people more closely related to those from further south, aka sub-Sahara.
One needs to understand the reason why there were pyramids.
One need to understand why Central Sudan was so important as the axis for the Nile Valley culture.
Are you willing to admit Egypt was more developed/superior than Nubia? Yes or No?
Can you admit Australian aborigines were (and still are) primitive? Yes or No?
It's a matter of interpretation. It's older, so the advancements are indeed primitive or should I say PRIMAL, to later advancements.
One has to understand that the Nile culture arose from the South, in a Nile upstream to the North. That is how the stream goes.
I am not a specialist on Australian aborigines, but I do understand that they have great knowledge (wisdom).
Posts: 22249 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: And anyone could argue "Europe" is much too large and to focus on specific ethnic groups or countries. You chose to say "Europe" because it fits your history of white supremacist, Eurocentrism. Europe being "just right" in size is Eurocentric. I chose to say Africa because compared populations in Africa are often not consistent in research.
Africa is three times larger in size than Europe (km˛). That is why it isn't used as a geographical label to cluster populations in studies because you end up with far too heterogeneous populations (genetic distances between European populations are a lot smaller than between African populations). This has been demonstrated since Nei and Roychoudry (1972) and Cavilli-Sforza et al (1994).
You're only clinging to an African cluster to suit your political interests (pan-Africanism).
My focus is non-broad clustering and always has been; I never said I preferred a "European" grouping you dunce. What I said is since Europe is a lot smaller than Africa - it is more useful because the population samples are closer genetically/craniometrically (but not in pigmentation). My actual focus has been local levels of analysis, hence why I posted the AE's are Egyptians, i.e the only people who can claim biological affinity to them are modern Egyptians and northern Sudanese/southern levant peoples (4 years ago - I said Copts). This is complete opposite of your agenda to try to lump Egyptians with western sub-Saharan Africans (people with completely different morphologies etc.).
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
Ancient Egyptians are not closer genetically to all African populations than those outside Africa.
Ok, now please present the ancient Egyptian autosomal DNA that lets us confirm your position.
I don't need autosomal DNA, I can demonstrate what I posted by archaeology, i.e. small-scale movement into Egypt from the south Levant, meaning there will be a cline south levant>lower Egypt>upper Egypt>Nubia. This cline was in place before the proto-dynastic, for example look at the archaeological research on Neolithic cultural interactions and direct bi-lateral trade between southern levant and lower Egypt/Nile Delta.
No you DO need DNA because: You dont know what type of prehistoric hunter gatherer populations were in the North Eastern quadrant of Africa at that time. -You dont know the genetic affinities of Ancient Egyptians "Afro-Asiatic" Ancestors from the Eastern Saharan, Red Sea Coast, Horn of Africa or Southern Levant. -You dont know the genetic affinities of Ancient Egyptians ancestors from the Eastern or Western Deserts. -You dont know the genetic affinities of Ancient Egyptians ancestors that are refugees from the Eastern Sahara. -You dont know the genetic affinities of Ancient Egyptians ancestors from the Central Sahara. -You dont know the genetic affinities of Ancient Egyptians ancestors who are associated with the Mesolithic of Khartoum.
You dont know the genetic affinities of ANY of Egyptians AFRICAN ancestors (out of their many lines of ancestry) because none of these ANCIENT populations have ever been sequenced - Except for Ethiopian MOTA ......and 18/20th dynasty low resolution Autosomal STR's if you want to count that. (but i know you dont )
You cannot make genetic inferences about ancient populations without ancient remains. LOOK at what has happened in Europe with all of their ancestors: Neanderthal, ANE, Hunter Gatherer, Neolithic Farmer from the middle East, Steppe Herder, Anatolian Farmer. etc.
@JoshuaConnerMoon. Still waiting for your explanation as to how you have the genetic prehistory of Egypt all sorted out without having any samples of the ancient DNA WHILE AT THE SAME TIME avoiding the ancient DNA that DOES exist which runs contrary to your narrative. [/QB]
Show me what contradicts isolation-by-distance. The Neanderthal data doesn't if interpreted correctly. What has to be remembered is population-size in Africa throughout Pleistocene was larger than outside:
"Eller and colleagues suggest it is likely that half or more of the human species lived in Africa, and some estimate the African percentage was even higher (Mele et al., 2011), until the population expansions at the end of the Pleistocene created extensive population growth in other parts of the world." - Caspari, R., Wolpoff, M, H. (2013). "The Process of Modern Human Origins: The Evolutionary and Demographic Changes Giving Rise to Modern Humans". In: Smith, F. H & Ahern, J. C. M. (eds.). The Origins of Modern Humans: Biology Reconsidered. New York: Wiley.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
^^ this is what you mean by "moderate" not black skin tone , all of the three above. The problem is that they are all far from above 50% for skin reflectance as we can see on any chart that gradates white to black --and there are thousands of examples of art like this
I don't normally do picture spams, but look how easy it is to finder lighter brown shades in the art-
Paint fades over time, especially when it is exposed to light. I've notice that much of the ancient Egyptian wall art that appear red are obviously faded. Evidence of that is the traces of the original dark paint that you see if you look closely.
Some of your examples also proves it. For one, that seated scribe was originally much darker, as evidence of the left over dark paint in this image. It was actually airbrushed much lighter by the museum.
Notice the patch of dark brown on this statue.
There is alot of evidence to back up the fact that that Nefertiti bust is a fake. Some of the images you posted were originally darker.
The most well preserved art that lacked light exposure and purposeful manipulation paint a different picture. Pun intended.
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: I've never described southern Europeans as white in pigmentation, e.g. going back to January 2012 (over 5 years), here is a comment I posted about the Luschan scale:
quote:Tanned or olive skin appears in the band 16-21, and it is neither light or dark, it occupies a medial position of skin tone most Mediterranean people have.
So you're lying about my position. And taking a quote out of context about Greek gods and goddesses I made before I even studied ancient Greek colour terms doesn't change this fact (i.e. 'leukos' does not only translate as milk or chalk white).
Regardless, here's how I described the typical ancient Greek in July 2011:
quote:[qb]dusky or brownish-white skin, black or deep-brown eyes, black hair, mostly wavy or curly.
Clearly not white.
You were using descriptions of their Gods and mythological figures to suggest the Greek people were white.
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ''Were the Greeks Pinks?'' =====
Ruddiness/redness is associated with fair pale skin.
''Let he children of Pelops perish when it comes to a comparison with the shoulder of Perseus! for beautiful as he is and ruddy of face'' - Philostratus Elder, Imagines, I
''So he was lifted by the dancing feet of the others, with red skin, his whole face emitting ruddy rays and shining between, them, the very image of the crescent moon.'' - Nonnus, Dionysiaca 18. 93
''...who is named with the name of this land, ruddy Bacchus to whom Bacchants cry'' - Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus, 210
''But ruddy Ceres in mid heat is mown, And in mid heat the parched ears are bruised'' - Virgil, Georgics 1. 287
Rosy-fingered (ῥοδο-δάκτυλος) was an epithet for Eos.
Ruddy was also applied to physically describe ordinary Greek (and Roman) citizens:
''TRACHALIO Have you seen to-day, while you've been standing here, any young man, of courageous aspect, ruddy, stout, of genteel appearance, come by this way, who was taking with him three men in scarfs, with swords?'' - T. Maccius Plautus, Rudens 2.2
''PAMPHILUS Then I'll tell you how to know it; a huge fellow, ruddy, with curly hair, fat, with gray eyes and freckled countenance.'' - P. Terentius Afer (Terence), Hecyra III. 4
Most Roman emperors were also described as ''ruddy''.
Suetonius describing Emperor Domitian:
''He was tall in stature, his face modest, and very ruddy; he had large eyes, but was dim-sighted; naturally graceful in his person, particularly in his youth..''
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ''Agamemnon is in direct descent from Epaphos, the Black ancestor of the Pelasgic house. Aeschylus in Prometheus Bound, describes Epaphos as "swarthy of hue" and that he originally lived in Africa.'' =========
And yet Io, the mother of Epaphus is physically described as white skinned.
Ovid (Metamorphoses, 1. 712 ff):
''And now imperial Juno, pacified, permitted Io to resume her form,— at once the hair fell from her snowy sides;the horns absorbed, her dilate orbs decreased;the opening of her jaws contracted; hands appeared and shoulders; and each transformed hoof became five nails. And every mark or form that gave the semblance of a heifer changed,except her fair white skin''
quote:And I've made this distinction between average northern and southern European pigmentation -the entire time- going back to my first account in 2010. In contrast you make no such distinction and maximize your definition of "black" skin to include much lighter brown skin shades, so you can lump Egyptians to fit your pan-African politics.
I think you missed the part where I said I don't believe the average AE skin tone was especially light. And for those it was I make "no distinctions" as far as what? I'm not blind, I know they're not the same skin shade. That doesn't mean that light skinned people are automatically genetically more distant to darker skinned people. A lighter skinned Ngwa Igbo is not going to be more closely related to a lighter skinned San than a darker skinned Igbo.
quote:
quote:I accused you of trying to de Africanize Egypt because that's what Eurocentric and racist thinkers do. They have a history of trying to place Egypt (culturally or biologically) not with related and nearby Africans, but in the Middle East or Europe so they can make bigoted judgements to most of Africa.
This comment is 100% fact. Populations from Sub-Saharan Africa lacked ancient civilization and did not accomplish as much as others, that's why all Afrocentrists latch on to Egypt. Why would you deny this? Why is it "bigoted" to point this out?
I simply said bigoted judgements. The guy fills in the statement and then asks how others would think he's bigoted for saying it.
Some things I'll add:
1. This should be pretty obvious but Pre Dynastic Egyptians for thousands of years lived in lands that were not "Saharan." To say it moar: They and today's "Sub Saharan Africans" lived alike in an Africa without a bigass desert. You're applying modern geological constructs to ancient people who hadn't lived in a full blown desert for very long before dynastic Egypt started. The Sahara hadn't completely returned in a window span of a few centuries before Dynastic Egypt or a few centuries after.
2. The populations that made Egypt came from the South and moved North, this is why we see the affinities we do to many SSA populations.
3. Many modern SSA descendants are related to populations that lived in the Sahara and Sahel. Tichitt's Mande civilization was contemporary to Greece and Rome. after the extended drying conditions and tensions from foreigners facing the same ecological stressors forced them to move South. These "SSA" from Tichitt's civilization then made the Ghana Empire, and from Ghana other civilizations came to pass.
As for accomplishments,SSA contributed to the development of math, art, fractals/algorithms etc. You compare them to some abstract "other civilizations" to deliberately create fodder for dehumanizing SSA. Should the idea they achieve less be your position, most civilizations had some "other" civilization that achieved more. The belief another civilization achieved more is not the problem here, it's the racial bigotry that is targeted towards SSA over the idea. These bigoted attitudes don't extend to Europeans even when you say they were mediocre.
quote: And I've pointed out the exact same thing about northern Europeans. Just compare the lack of civilization in Britain (pre-Roman) to Rome.
You haven't discussed Britain in a way that implies a view of their being sub human. You For whatever supposed medicority you feel towards their civilizations, etc. you give the rest of Europe a pass. But behave bigoted when the subject is blacks. On the subject of Britain and civilization you'd been tying Britain in particular to Israel.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: ''what are the similarities between British Israelism and BHI'' ====
By BHI i presume you mean the 'Black Hebrew Israelites', who are a bunch of lunatics with a membership of about 500.
In contrast British Israelism during its heyday had millions of supporters and many academics or scholars, as well as prestige patrons even including members of the British monarchy.
British Israelism is also multi-denominational and has members or proponents from Baptist, Calvinist, Methodist, Anglican etc backgrounds, while the Black Hebrew Israelites in contrast are an idiotic cult, filled with wierdos and cranks.
Regarding scripture, British Israelism is theologically and Biblically justified, while in contrast the Black Hebrew Israelites have zero understanding of the scripture and they just twist it whereever they can to demonise whites.
- BI has it origins thousands of years ago, or can at least be traced to the early medieval period. Later becomming an established movement in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.
- BHI in contrast has its origins in american ghettos in the last few years. Basically only dumb black people subscribe to BHI to attack whites. Its pathetic.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: And anyone could argue "Europe" is much too large and to focus on specific ethnic groups or countries. You chose to say "Europe" because it fits your history of white supremacist, Eurocentrism. Europe being "just right" in size is Eurocentric. I chose to say Africa because compared populations in Africa are often not consistent in research.
Africa is three times larger in size than Europe (km˛). That is why it isn't used as a geographical label to cluster populations in studies because you end up with far too heterogeneous populations (genetic distances between European populations are a lot smaller than between African populations). This has been demonstrated since Nei and Roychoudry (1972) and Cavilli-Sforza et al (1994).
You're only clinging to an African cluster to suit your political interests (pan-Africanism).
My focus is non-broad clustering and always has been; I never said I preferred a "European" grouping you dunce. What I said is since Europe is a lot smaller than Africa - it is more useful because the population samples are closer genetically/craniometrically (but not in pigmentation). My actual focus has been local levels of analysis, hence why I posted the AE's are Egyptians, i.e the only people who can claim biological affinity to them are modern Egyptians and northern Sudanese/southern levant peoples (4 years ago - I said Copts). This is complete opposite of your agenda to try to lump Egyptians with western sub-Saharan Africans (people with completely different morphologies etc.).
Also west Africans have great morphological diversity, contrary the believe they don't. Your source on genetics is actually a bit dated, 1972, 1994? But in biological terms, indeed Northern Sudanese and Southern-Middle Egyptians can claim to have the closest affinities. The North becomes debatable more and more.
quote: E-M78 subclades
The distribution of E-M78 subclades among Sudanese is shown in Table 2. Only two chromosomes fell under the paragroup E-M78*. E-V65 and E-V13 were completely absent in the samples analyzed, whereas the other subclades were relatively common. E-V12* accounts for 19.3% and is widely distributed among Su- danese. E-V32 (51.8%) is by far the most common sub-clades among Sudanese. It has the highest frequency among populations of western Sudan and Beja. E-V22 accounts for 27.2% and its highest frequency appears to be among Fulani, but it is also common in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups.
[...]
The Fulani, who possess the lowest population size in this study, have an interesting genetic structure, effectively consisting of two haplogroups or founding lineages. One of the lineages is R-M173 (53.8%), and its sheer frequency suggests either a recent migration of this group to Africa and/or a restricted gene flow due to linguistic or cultural barriers. The high frequency of sub-clade E-V22, which is believed to be northeast African (Cruciani et al., 2007) and haplogroup R-M173, suggests an amalgamation of two populations/cultures that took place sometime in the past in eastern or central Africa. This is also evident from the frequency of the ‘‘T’’ allele of the lactase persistence gene that is uniquely present in considerable frequencies among the Fulani (Mulcare et al., 2004). Interestingly, Fulani language is classified in the Niger-Congo family of languages, which is more prevalent in West Africa and among Bantu speakers, yet their Y-chromosomes show very little evidence of West African genetic affiliation.
It seems, however, that the effective size of the pastorlists and nomadic pastoralists is generally much smaller than groups of sedentary agriculturalists life style. This is intriguing in the sense that one would expect nomadic tribes to be more able to admix, spread, and receive genes than their sedentary counterparts.
--Hisham Y. Hassan, Peter A. Underhill, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza, and Muntaser E. Ibrahim
Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History
Posts: 22249 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: And anyone could argue "Europe" is much too large and to focus on specific ethnic groups or countries. You chose to say "Europe" because it fits your history of white supremacist, Eurocentrism. Europe being "just right" in size is Eurocentric. I chose to say Africa because compared populations in Africa are often not consistent in research.
Africa is three times larger in size than Europe (km˛). That is why it isn't used as a geographical label to cluster populations in studies because you end up with far too heterogeneous populations (genetic distances between European populations are a lot smaller than between African populations). This has been demonstrated since Nei and Roychoudry (1972) and Cavilli-Sforza et al (1994).
You're only clinging to an African cluster to suit your political interests (pan-Africanism).
My focus is non-broad clustering and always has been; I never said I preferred a "European" grouping you dunce. What I said is since Europe is a lot smaller than Africa - it is more useful because the population samples are closer genetically/craniometrically (but not in pigmentation). My actual focus has been local levels of analysis, hence why I posted the AE's are Egyptians, i.e the only people who can claim biological affinity to them are modern Egyptians and northern Sudanese/southern levant peoples (4 years ago - I said Copts). This is complete opposite of your agenda to try to lump Egyptians with western sub-Saharan Africans (people with completely different morphologies etc.).
cont.:
quote: Y-chromosome haplogroup tree
The Y-chromosome haplogroup tree has been constructed manually following YCC 2008 nomenclature20 with some modifications.35 The tree (Supplementary Figure S1) contains the E haplogroups of Eritrean populations from this study and those reported in the literature.22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 Genotyping results for E-V13, E-V12, E-V22 and E-V32 reported for Eritrean samples and elsewhere23, 27 were retracted to E-M78 haplogroup level. All the analyses in this study were done at the same resolution using the following 17 bi-allelic markers: E-M96, E-M33, E-P2, E-M2, E-M58, E-M191, E-M154, E-M329, E-M215, E-M35, E-M78, E-M81, E-M123, E-M34, E-V6, E-V16/E-M281 and E-M75.
[...]
Median-joining (MJ) network. Network manipulated to fit the geography of the extant populations. MJ network was constructed using E haplogroup frequencies. Group represented by ITAL contains all the Italian samples pooled. Populations’ descriptions are given in Supplementary Table S1.
NJ tree based on FST values generated from Arlequin 3.11. Population names are as given in Supplementary Table S1. Population life style: circle – agriculturalists; square – pastoralists; triangle – nomads; inverted triangle – nomadic pastoralists; diamond – agro-pastoralists. The populations are colored according to their language family: red – Afro-asiatic; blue – Nilo-Saharan; green – Niger-Kordofanian; yellow – Khoisan; black – Italic and Basque.
[...]
Interestingly, this ancestral cluster includes populations like Fulani who has previously shown to display Eastern African ancestry, common history with the Hausa who are the furthest Afro-Asiatic speakers to the west in the Sahel, with a large effective size and complex genetic background.23 The Fulani who currently speak a language classified as Niger-Kordofanian may have lost their original tongue to as sociated sedentary group similar to other cattle herders in Africa a common tendency among pastoralists. Clearly cultural trends exemplified by populations, like Hausa or Massalit, the latter who have neither strong tradition in agriculture nor animal husbandry, were established subsequent to the initial differentiation of haplogroup E. For example, the early clusters within the network also include Nilo-Saharan speakers like Kunama of Eritrea and Nilotic of Sudan who are ardent nomadic pastoralists but speak a language of non-Afro-Asiatic background the predominant linguistic family within the macrohaplogroup.
[...]
The Sahel, which extends between the Atlantic coast of Africa and the Red Sea plateau, represents one of the least sampled areas and populations in the domain of human genetics. The position of Eritrea adjacent to the Red Sea coast provides opportunities for insights regarding human migrations within and beyond the African landscape.
--Eyoab I Gebremeskel1,2 and Muntaser E Ibrahim1
European Journal of Human Genetics (2014) 22, 1387–1392; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.41; published online 26 March 2014
Y-chromosome E haplogroups: their distribution and implication to the origin of Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralism EJHGOpen
Posts: 22249 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
You accuse the troll of trying to de-Africanize ancient Egypy -an impossible task- and it really is beside the point. The troll is irrelevant. What does it matter what he thinks? He can't actually do anything. He has just about as much chance of pulling off your accusation as he has of destroying the sun.
You're apealing to a moron, as though he mattered in the slightest; a brain dead hick so ignorant that he doesn't even realise (with the exception of North Sudan) the other Northeast Africans are actually Sub-Saharan Africans. This includes Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea and Djibouti.
These Sub-Saharan Africans created Punt, D'mt and Aksum and are related to the other Northeast Africans that created ancient Egypt, Kush, Wawat, Yam, Irtjet, Temeh and Setju.
Scholars now recognise that ancient Egypt was a Sudanese transplant, but the ancient Egyptians may also have had ancestors from the Central Sahara and the Western desert. The ancient Egyptians spoke a language closely related to Chadic and the language group was actually the closest linguistic group to ancient Egyptian; Chadic is a language group that extends from Chad to Nigeria - so there really is no divorcing ancient Egypt from West African populations as well.
Do you really expect the troll to understand that the Sahara was once lush during the predynastic period and that populations now in the North have their origins in the South?
The retard argues that civilizations were less advanced the further South you travelled deeper into Africa from the Mediterranean, in complete opposition to the fact that Upper Egypt was far more advanced than Lower Egypt, so his retarded theory dies before it even ventures out of Egypt.
Kush was also more powerful, sophisticated and advanced than the "Nubians" further North in Lower "Nubia"; ancient Egypt was a Sudanese transplant and owes its existence to its kin and kith in the South ... people that were virtually indistinguishable from Upper Egyptians; they stem from a common origin and shared the same culture.
The ancient Greeks noted that the ancient Sudanese always maintained that ancient Egypt was merely our colony and the modern disciplines affirm this. Isn't that grand?
The dunce also seems to laughably assert that there was apparently something special about the Mediterranean... implying that it was seminal in the formation of ancient Egypt.
We know this to be nonsense; the theory is retarded, just like all his positions. The only way this would make sense is if ancient Egypt was actually established in Lower Egypt on the Mediterranean, and was preceded by advanced civilizations in the Mediterranean that it then drew upon for inspiration. There were none.
Ancient Egypt was established in the South, on the banks of the Nile - thousands of years before the Mediterranean benefitted from Egypt's intellectual largess and accomplishments... which is precisely how the Mediterranean Europeans became civilized.
The people of the Levant have no claims to ancient Egypt, and it's only the indigenous Upper Egyptians and North Sudanese that have any direct rights to ancient Egypt.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: And anyone could argue "Europe" is much too large and to focus on specific ethnic groups or countries. You chose to say "Europe" because it fits your history of white supremacist, Eurocentrism. Europe being "just right" in size is Eurocentric. I chose to say Africa because compared populations in Africa are often not consistent in research.
Africa is three times larger in size than Europe (km˛). That is why it isn't used as a geographical label to cluster populations in studies because you end up with far too heterogeneous populations (genetic distances between European populations are a lot smaller than between African populations). This has been demonstrated since Nei and Roychoudry (1972) and Cavilli-Sforza et al (1994).
You're only clinging to an African cluster to suit your political interests (pan-Africanism).
My focus is non-broad clustering and always has been; I never said I preferred a "European" grouping you dunce. What I said is since Europe is a lot smaller than Africa - it is more useful because the population samples are closer genetically/craniometrically (but not in pigmentation). My actual focus has been local levels of analysis, hence why I posted the AE's are Egyptians, i.e the only people who can claim biological affinity to them are modern Egyptians and northern Sudanese/southern levant peoples (4 years ago - I said Copts). This is complete opposite of your agenda to try to lump Egyptians with western sub-Saharan Africans (people with completely different morphologies etc.).
quote: "The ancient Egyptians were not 'white' in any European sense, nor were they 'Caucasian'... we can say that the earliest population of ancient Egypt included African people from the upper Nile, African people from the regions of the Sahara and modern Libya, and smaller numbers of people who had come from south-western Asia and perhaps the Arabian penisula."
--Robert Morkot (2005). The Egyptians: An Introduction. pp. 12-13
Posts: 22249 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: You were using descriptions of their Gods and mythological figures to suggest the Greek people were white.
No.
If anyone is really interested in stuff I was posting 6 years ago, see here to get the correct context of what I said about white Greeks gods. Oshun is lying as usual.
July, 2011-
quote:Indo-Europeans often seem to have been small minorities in the countries they penetrated... anthropologists who have studied the hair or pigmentation of the ancient Greeks have concluded only around 7% were blonde. The Indo-Europeans in Greece therefore only reflected the physique of the higher classes, who claimed descent from the fair Gods.
I was talking about a theory that a small Indo-European elite (who had fairer pigmentation) ruled over the darker Greek masses i.e. caste-like stratification, following this article: http://www.geocities.ws/race_articles/greekface.html My mythology discussion of gods is in context pf the caste-pigmentation theory that says the blonde elites claimed descent from the gods; I estimated the white skinned fair-haired IE caste in Greece was as little as 7% of the population; this is no longer even a hypothesis I defend. Regardless, nowhere did I claim the typical Greek was white (93% as not white skinned/blonde haired), but the opposite:
quote:In regards to ancient Greece, the Indo-Europeans only were a small fraction compared the indigenous Pelagian population. The mass lower classes were Pelasgic... Huxley's melanochroi 'dark white' race)... according to the anthropologist Sir Edward Burnett Tylor the Pelasgians had: ''dusky or brownish-white skin, black or deep-brown eyes, black hair, mostly wavy or curly''.
Oshun of course doesn't quote the true context of my old posts. The fact is - I've never described southern European pigmentation as white. This upsets her/he since I don't politicalize the word unlike his/her agenda with the word black (see the paragraph below).
quote:I think you missed the part where I said I don't believe the average AE skin tone was especially light. And for those it was I make "no distinctions" as far as what? I'm not blind, I know they're not the same skin shade. That doesn't mean that light skinned people are automatically genetically more distant to darker skinned people. A lighter skinned Ngwa Igbo is not going to be more closely related to a lighter skinned San than a darker skinned Igbo.
The point is you use the term "black" to cover those lighter skin shades. You're politicalizing the word. If you truly recognise Egyptians were lighter brown skin shades (than more southern populations), why not recognise the cline, instead of using a very broad category black. Why not call Egyptians light or medial brown than black? Answer: this doesn't play into your politics.
quote: 1. This should be pretty obvious but Pre Dynastic Egyptians for thousands of years lived in lands that were not "Saharan." To say it moar: They and today's "Sub Saharan Africans" lived alike in an Africa without a bigass desert. You're applying modern geological constructs to ancient people who hadn't lived in a full blown desert for very long before dynastic Egypt started. The Sahara hadn't completely returned in a window span of a few centuries before Dynastic Egypt or a few centuries after.
This is nonsense. The movements were more westward than southward, but those settlements to the south were not into lower latitude Sub-Saharan Africa, but the northern fringe/Sahel - so what's your point?
quote:The populations that made Egypt came from the South and moved North, this is why we see the affinities we do to many SSA populations.
They don't show close affinities to SSA populations, with the possible exception of the northern fringe or Sahel groups. Also its disputable "Egypt came from south", since you ignore the Lower Egyptian contributions. And you're not bigoted? Since Lower Egypt is closer to Europe and Levant than Upper Egypt, this is why Afrocentrists downplay Lower Egyptian contributions and obsess with Upper Egypt. waycism much?
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Cass/Dead/Krom/Atlantid Not sure where you being up Neanderthal. You are still not wxomaint how your can decipher the genetic history of a population without using ancient DNA. YES, IBD does matter BUT Egyptians haveiltiole lines or ancestry from MOBILE nomadic populations that come from multiple places.
Furthermore go ahead and look at ancient European DNA to see how close in proximity very divergent populations lived.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @Cass/Dead/Krom/Atlantid Not sure where you being up Neanderthal. You are still not wxomaint how your can decipher the genetic history of a population without using ancient DNA. YES, IBD does matter BUT Egyptians haveiltiole lines or ancestry from MOBILE nomadic populations that come from multiple places.
Furthermore go ahead and look at ancient European DNA to see how close in proximity very divergent populations lived.
I've not much looked at the Neolithic European period. But let's look at Upper Paleolithic, a "modern" UP specimen (Oase) is estimated to be 7.5% Neanderthal-
This doesn't contradict an long-term Pleistocene IBD model, but it is problematic for OOA that posits no to negligible admixture. Up to 9% is not negligible, especially not when you take into account the small population size(s) in Europe at that time.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
smh
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic